Children's Ideas About Gender Differences May Surprise You

In the previous posts, I have described research showing that our constant "use" of gender – to label, sort, color-code, and segregate children – leads them to create gender stereotypes. Yet, many parents assume that their children don't hold gender stereotypes, often because they work hard to raise egalitarian children. Unfortunately, most children do endorse stereotypes, at times really strong ones. It is common, for example, for children to say that only boys can be President, or only girls are kind.

Children even take their stereotypes about gender a step further. In a cleverly titled research paper, “Boys Will Be Boys; Cows Will Be Cows,” Marianne Taylor, Marjorie Rhodes, and Susan Gelman, researchers in psychology at the University of Michigan, describe their research in which they asked five- and six-year-old children about the characteristics of gender groups and animal species groups. They asked children what would happen if a cow was adopted at birth by a group of pigs. They wanted to know if children thought the cow raised by pigs would grow up mooing or oinking. They also asked children what would happen if a baby girl was adopted at birth by her uncle, who happened to live on an island inhabited only by men and boys. Would she, when she grew bigger, like to sew and play with tea sets, or would she enjoy the activities she was raised to do, such as building things and fishing ? In other words, the researchers wanted to know if children thought girls were born with a girl “essence” (including taking care of babies, sewing, and putting on makeup) and boys were born with a boy “essence” (including playing with trucks, building things, and wanting to be a firefighter) as core traits that would exist even if the child never had any exposure to those things.

Not surprising to the researchers, they found that children assume cows always moo, even among their adopted family of pigs. This is actually an accurate assumption, as cows and pigs are fundamentally different species. Cows are born with innate and unchangeable characteristics that make them moo (and not oink), and pigs are born with a different set of innate and unchangeable characteristics that make them oink (and not moo). Children understood that there was an underlying “essence” that the animals were born with that couldn’t be changed or altered, no matter what they were exposed to or what they were taught.

Here’s where children’s assumptions about innate differences err. Children also assume that girls always play with makeup and tea sets and boys always collect baseball cards and play with fire trucks, even if the girls and boys were never exposed to these things. In other words, they assume that collecting baseball cards is as innate to a boy as mooing is to a cow. A cow can’t do pig things, just like a girl can’t do boy things and a boy can’t do girl things. Children, based on the findings in this study, assume that girls are born with innate and unchangeable characteristics that fundamentally differ from the innate and unchangeable characteristics that boys are born with. No amount of exposure or teaching can change our traits and interests. In other words, boys and girls are as different as cows and pigs.

This is an important study because it points out how rigid children’s thinking is when it comes to gender differences. It is similar to the old saying “Give him an inch and he will take a mile.” Give kids a little push toward focusing on gender differences (and, in fact, we are giving them a massive push with our constant use of gender), and they will run with it—making us entirely different species in the process.

Does it really matter whether children think all girls like to sew and all boys like to collect baseball cards? We know that with increased labeling of gender, our tendency to think that all boys have one set of attributes and all girls have another increases. But does that matter when we are raising our own kids? Yes, because once these stereotypes kick in for a child, they are extremely hard to change.

People, children included, have a strong drive to remember information that is consistent with what they know or think they know. This drive is likely hardwired into us. We like to make predictions about the world. It helps us navigate a sometimes scary environment. I like knowing that all dogs bark, all cats meow, and all lions roar. It helps me know how to interact with a new dog or cat, and helps me remember to avoid interacting with lions.

In the same way, the world becomes a more dependable place when I can predict how “all” boys or “all” girls will act. The problem is that all boys don’t act the same, nor do all girls. Therefore, to keep our ste- reotypes (that is to say, predictions) intact, we have to do some fancy mental tricks.

To help us believe that our predictions are always accurate, we are good at forgetting exceptions to our rules or distorting those rules in our mind. Research by developmental psychologist Carol Martin (and others since her) has shown children a picture of a man standing in front of a stove while telling them that the man likes to cook dinner for his family. When children were asked about this man later, they didn’t alter their stereotype about women cooking. Instead, they misremembered the story character as a woman or remembered the man as repairing the stove instead of cooking. Some children, when they were shown a picture of a female school principal, later remembered her as the “lunch lady” or secretary. Similarly, some children remembered the male cook at a hospital as a doctor—a nice promotion for him.

Schools, in a noble effort to interest more girls in math and science, often try to combat stereotypes by showing children images of famous female scientists. “See, they did it. You can do it, too!” Unfortunately, these attempts rarely work, according to the research. Girls are more likely to remember the women as lab assistants.

Once children learn that being a boy or a girl is important, they come up with their own, often inaccurate, explanations about how and why boys and girls differ. They assume boys and girls are different in deep, fundamental ways. They assume that culturally specific traits, like wanting to sew or be a firefighter, are innate and biologically driven. Unfortunately, once these stereotypes are in place, they are difficult to change unless you address them head on.

The only thing the experiment described in the blog post shows is that the children in the experiment were smarter than the adult researchers analyzing the results. Let's revisit the details of the experiment:

Would she, when she grew bigger, like to sew and play with tea sets, or would she enjoy the activities she was raised to do, such as building things and fishing ?

The key words in that quote are: "like to" and "enjoy," which indicate preference, not ability. Yet the conclusion that's drawn is:

A cow can’t do pig things, just like a girl can’t do boy things and a boy can’t do girl things. Children, based on the findings in this study, assume that girls are born with innate and unchangeable characteristics that fundamentally differ from the innate and unchangeable characteristics that boys are born with.

I disagree. The findings show that girls and boys have different preferences in toys, not that they lack the ability to play with toys associated with a different gender due to "innate and unchangeable characteristics". How else would you explain anomalies in which girls like to play with cars and boys like to play with dolls despite being raised in "gender stereotypical" homes?

They assume boys and girls are different in deep, fundamental ways.

They are different in deep, fundamental ways - just consider their reproduction systems. Biology (science, itself) states that as fact. I think it's silly to deny differences between boys and girls. What's important is to acknowledge that culturally imposed differences are fluid.

"The key words in that quote are: "like to" and "enjoy," which indicate preference, not ability."

And yet, somehow, the kids concluded that this girl, who had never seen anyone play with a tea set, would innately develop the ability to make a tea set, and then to play with it, simply because she was a girl. How is that not a matter of ability?

"How else would you explain anomalies in which girls like to play with cars and boys like to play with dolls despite being raised in "gender stereotypical" homes?"

Like you just did? They are "anomalies". They are abnormal. There's something weird with them. They are not as normal boys and girls are. Kids are very good at labeling other kids who don't fit neatly into pre-determined boxes.

"What's important is to acknowledge that culturally imposed differences are fluid."

What about: what's important is to recognise that there's no need for culturally imposed differences?

"They also asked children what would happen if a baby girl was adopted at birth by her uncle, who happened to live on an island inhabited only by men and boys. Would she, when she grew bigger, like to sew and play with tea sets, or would she enjoy the activities she was raised to do, such as building things and fishing ?"

If playing with a tea set was part of the girl's life among the men and boys, then it wouldn't have been chosen as one of the activities that she was NOT raised to do. So the safe assumption is that no, there had never been any tea set for her to play with, since she had only access to the same toys as the boys and men.

Girls and boys are different....in deep and fundamental ways. Me thinks you have it backwards - the kids are not the products of culturally and artificially created stereotypes....you and the researchers are. The kids see reality as it is - without the influence of "politically correct" thinking - and without the wishful thinking that clearly governs the "no innate gender differences" movement. You seem to believe what you want to be so - as opposed to that which is. And that approach is the hallmark of dangerously poor and misguided science.
It is not the kids' views that have been distorted because culturally infused stereotypes have "kicked in"....it is yours and the researchers because personal beliefs on what "should be" have kicked in and replaced accurate appraisals of reality.

I think that you missed one of my points. I was stating that the author seems to suggest that girls and boys have boy/girl stereotypes because our gender labelling culture has lead them to adopt these stereotypes. Not because they come naturally - but because our society enforces/teaches them. I was arguing that the author's belief as to what causes these stereotypes was misguided. It is the way kids naturally see the world that causes these stereotypes and not a culturally learned way of explaining the world.
I am not saying that being racist or homophobic is a good thing - and that is a leap that is NOT the natural conclusion to be drawn from what I said. I am saying that denying differences is a delusional exercise. Being racist is one thing - but denying that differences exist between people due to gender, race or culture is just a denial of reality.
There is a fundamental distinction between saying girls and boys are different and have different interests and abilities and saying girls can't be doctors or astronauts. And thinking one does not necessarily lead down the slippery slope of the other. And the inability to make the distinction between the admission of differences and the endorsement of racism or discriminatory behaviours is simplistically misguided.

No one is asking for a denial of anything. Yes, a boy and a girl are physically different. But... then what? Why should this difference have ANY influence on how they are raised? They should be allowed to express their individual personalities without any cultural pressure to conform to gender stereotypes.

"There is a fundamental distinction between saying girls and boys are different and have different interests and abilities "

Where does that leave all the children who have non-gender-conforming interests and abilities? Can't we just say that "all kids" are different and have different interests and abilities, and leave it at that, without unnecessarily mentioning categories based on what the shape of their genitals is?

As a parent of both a boy and a girl, and what I've always thought intellectually has now been reinforced by my children. Boys and girls are different and will have different likes, likes which are not forced on them, but they just LIKE it. I can't get my 9 year old from talking about war, tanks, mythology and science. I can't get my 6 year old girl to stop talking about princess, dancing, twirly dresses, and what clothes shes going to wear.

They both like minecraft, though for different reasons, he likes to build things, she likes to decorate things.

They are little stereotypes and not all kids will be like this but its time to stop assuming that its external factors that create this and admit there are genetic differences as well.

Of course I'm a believer in evolutionary psychology and biologist so I'm one of those guys.

Your kids are stereotypes and there's nothing wrong with that. But do they HOLD the same stereotypes for other kids? If a girl wanted to talk tanks with your son, would he refuse because she's a girl? If a boy wanted to dance along with your daughter, would she refuse because he's a boy? Can they entertain the idea that a girl could like doing boy things and vice versa? Because if they don't, they are bound to hurt another kid someday - and there's something wrong with *that*.

Your kids are stereotypes and there's nothing wrong with that. But do they HOLD the same stereotypes for other kids? If a girl wanted to talk tanks with your son, would he refuse because she's a girl? If a boy wanted to dance along with your daughter, would she refuse because he's a boy? Can they entertain the idea that a girl could like doing boy things and vice versa? Because if they don't, they are bound to hurt another kid someday - and there's something wrong with *that*.

When we have kids over to play, he plays very well with the girls and usually tries to arm them with nerf guns or toy swords. Whats interesting is the girls will tend to run away screaming (pretend screaming, more of a laugh) and the boys will chase them. Hes 9 and had two 11 year old girls that were over playing with him quite well.

Isn't that where the problem is? How is it important to be a little boy or a little girl? What difference does it make? Someday, in 10 or 20 years, yes, it will make a little difference, in that only women are able to carry and give birth to babies. But right now, at the age of 5 or 10, how is it important?

The only reason I can see for it being important, is because adults want to raise them in different ways depending on whether they are boys or girls. Adults want to know which behaviours to encourage or discourage, which toys to buy, which lessons to teach, which words to use - all of it depending on whether the kids are boys or girls.

This is not about the kids. It's about the adults living in a very strictly gender-segregated world, and training the kids to reproduce that world from infancy - even though gender really doesn't matter at all during childhood.

I'm not denying that most kids would still act and feel gender-stereotypically. If kids were allowed to act however they wanted, I still expect that the vast majority of those choosing to play with dolls would be girls, while the vast majority of those choosing to play with cars would be boys. But at least, the non-stereotypical ones would not be made to feel like there's something wrong with them, and all the kids would feel free to explore other options from time to time. I think that could only be a good thing for all the kids individually, as well as for society in general.

Gender does matter in childhood, not all gender differences are directly sexual. Trying to change that takes more than the parents, it takes changing our own evolution. As a young man I can look back at those early years, the teasing, the fighting, etc, and by early I'm talking before 10 and realize that we were fighting our own dominance games and using what we could to bring down our rivals and pump ourselves up. King of the hill, despite not being allowed in schools anymore is what little boys do, figuratively and literally. I had a troop of 8 year old cub scouts with me on a tour of a horse farm. There was a small boulder which, boys being boys, decided to climb, which then quickly turned into a physical game of king of the hill. There were a number of girls with us, who were more interested in the cats. We stopped the boys quickly of course for safety but it took a bit of effort to get their attention.

These are not simply learned behaviors, they are our instincts. Growing up I was taught humans have no instincts, and that couldn't be farther from the truth.

"Gender does matter in childhood, not all gender differences are directly sexual."

Such as?

"As a young man I can look back at those early years, the teasing, the fighting, etc, and by early I'm talking before 10 and realize that we were fighting our own dominance games and using what we could to bring down our rivals and pump ourselves up."

And you think girls don't do that too O.o ?

"There was a small boulder which, boys being boys, decided to climb, which then quickly turned into a physical game of king of the hill. There were a number of girls with us, who were more interested in the cats."

How many of these girls would have joined the boys if they had not been taught to be good, quiet, obedient little girls who don't do stuff like that? I don't know, but the thing is, you don't know either.

If we're talking anecdotes, here's one of mine: when I was in what would be Grade 9, we had double gym class, segregated by gender. At the end of the year, once we were done with the regular schedule and had about a month left until summer, their coach asked the girls what they wanted to do - it could be anything, as long as it could be done on the stadium field. He was rather floored by the enthusiastic answer: rugby. Mind you, it only lasted two weeks, because while one half of the girls were happily (and inevitably rather dirtily) learning the basic ropes, the other half was busy tearing into each other under the pretense of playing rugby: scratching, punching, hair-pulling, and so on. Oh, and I should probably mention one thing: the coach was, exceptionally, a guy. He had replaced the old lady coach during the year, and he would no doubt not be coaching girls again the next year. Would the girls have asked for rugby if it had been a regular female coach teaching them? I doubt it. But because he was a guy, and because there were none of their male classmates around, they felt free to ask for something FUN, for once.

That's what I'm talking about: girls are taught to restrain themselves right from infancy, while boys are encouraged to have fun. Boys will be boys - but girls have to be girls, and that's not fair.

"Gender does matter in childhood, not all gender differences are directly sexual."

What I mean is that not all differences have to do with sex as a action. So even a pubertal male will have differences from a female. Lets take learning and language skills. Those are different and develop differently in boys and girls. The school system is designed more around a "sit and listen" method, which is not ideal for boys. Its why more boys are on ADHD meds then girls. There are simply biological differences.

"As a young man I can look back at those early years, the teasing, the fighting, etc, and by early I'm talking before 10 and realize that we were fighting our own dominance games and using what we could to bring down our rivals and pump ourselves up."

And you think girls don't do that too O.o ?

Of course they do, I have an office staff of entirely females. A difference between men and women in this is that men stab men in the chest, women stab women in the back. Its not that women don't have dominance games, its a different sort of dominance. Physical fights with girls were rare growing up, but an everyday occurrence as a boy. The park after school was often an OK corral situation. Girls didn't do that.

"There was a small boulder which, boys being boys, decided to climb, which then quickly turned into a physical game of king of the hill. There were a number of girls with us, who were more interested in the cats."

How many of these girls would have joined the boys if they had not been taught to be good, quiet, obedient little girls who don't do stuff like that? I don't know, but the thing is, you don't know either.

You are right, I only know the girls never would get involved growing up or currently. I don't raise my daughter to be quiet. Nor do I know anyone who does based on the kids that come over to our house to play.

If we're talking anecdotes, here's one of mine: when I was in what would be Grade 9, we had double gym class, segregated by gender. At the end of the year, once we were done with the regular schedule and had about a month left until summer, their coach asked the girls what they wanted to do - it could be anything, as long as it could be done on the stadium field. He was rather floored by the enthusiastic answer: rugby. Mind you, it only lasted two weeks, because while one half of the girls were happily (and inevitably rather dirtily) learning the basic ropes, the other half was busy tearing into each other under the pretense of playing rugby: scratching, punching, hair-pulling, and so on. Oh, and I should probably mention one thing: the coach was, exceptionally, a guy. He had replaced the old lady coach during the year, and he would no doubt not be coaching girls again the next year. Would the girls have asked for rugby if it had been a regular female coach teaching them? I doubt it. But because he was a guy, and because there were none of their male classmates around, they felt free to ask for something FUN, for once.

That's what I'm talking about: girls are taught to restrain themselves right from infancy, while boys are encouraged to have fun. Boys will be boys - but girls have to be girls, and that's not fair.

I'd be floored at rugby too, mostly because schools hate that sport due to injuries, male or female. Even 30 years ago I played it a grand total of ONCE in school in PE class. Its also an unfamiliar sport to most Americans. I personally think you might be projecting your own upbringing too much onto this with girls being taught to restrain themselves. I personally don't see a large bias with this sort of thing in my patients, or talking to parents of my patients. As a male I was personally discouraged from many sports by my father because he didn't want me getting hurt playing something like football.

"The school system is designed more around a "sit and listen" method, which is not ideal for boys. Its why more boys are on ADHD meds then girls. There are simply biological differences."

You forget one huge detail: girls are taught to "sit and listen" right from infancy. So *of course* it's natural to them once they go to school. Boys on the other hand are allowed to run wild because "boys will be boys", so *of course* it's hard on them when suddenly they are asked to sit ans listen.

In short: girls are trained for the "sit and listen" system from birth, while boys are not. There's no need to assume a biological difference in their later reactions to that very system in school, when it's just a matter of training.

"Physical fights with girls were rare growing up, but an everyday occurrence as a boy. The park after school was often an OK corral situation. Girls didn't do that."

Because they were strictly forbidden to do that. Again, you are assuming a biological preference where a difference in upbringing is more than enough to explain the different behaviours.

"You are right, I only know the girls never would get involved growing up or currently."

Same education, same results.

"I don't raise my daughter to be quiet. Nor do I know anyone who does based on the kids that come over to our house to play."

1. Similar people tend to draw closer together.
2. If you are tolerant of girls acting however they want, then girls will be more likely to act however they want in your house.
Neither of these mean that these girls are not still being taught to be quiet everywhere else.

"Its also an unfamiliar sport to most Americans."

I'm not American. This explains that.

"I personally think you might be projecting your own upbringing too much onto this with girls being taught to restrain themselves."

You mean, my upbringing as a girl, who was constantly berated for not being feminine enough because I liked to play rough and climb stuff and be loud and run around, and who had to watch and listen while other girls were praised for being good little girls for being so quiet and obedient and clean and so on? Yes, I do indeed think that my upbringing has a lot to do in my opinion on the matter - because I actually had to LIVE through that sexist education.

"I personally don't see a large bias with this sort of thing in my patients, or talking to parents of my patients."

A man who doesn't see any sexist bias in education... Wow, colour me surprised! Except not.

"As a male I was personally discouraged from many sports by my father because he didn't want me getting hurt playing something like football."

You completely missed my point. My point was not about rugby being a dangerous sport (gymnastics is dangerous too, considering we had to jump and fly atop the high beam, the assymetric bars, or the vault, and yet we had it every year), but that it was a MALE sport - and yet a group of 14yo girls asked to have a go at it.

Or take the Billy Elliott movie: oh sure my son, I'll pay for boxing lessons - but I'll be damned if I let you take ballet lessons! Because boxing is macho, while ballet is for guuuurls, right?

You can deny the existence and influence of the sexist education we put kids through until the cows go home. I saw it everywhere when I was a kid, and I still see it everywhere now that I'm a parent. Also, as a trans person, I have listened to countless tales of trans people who were shamed or even beaten as kids for acting non-gender-conformingly. So just because you don't happen to see a phenomenon which, coincidentally enough, is not a problem in your life at all, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It just means you have no reason to see it, and every reason to deny it.

There's a strong need for people to believe that there are fundamental differences between girls and boys because it serves a particular societal system, a patriarchy. This harmful belief is the root cause of misogyny, sexism and homophobia. There are biological differences between males and females but there's no valid scientific evidence that these differences drive one sex to like pink and one sex to like blue, so to speak. These are cultural influences, which are the main way that human beings learn from the youngest age.

There's a strong need for people to believe that there are fundamental differences between girls and boys because it serves a particular societal system, a patriarchy. This harmful belief is the root cause of misogyny, sexism and homophobia. There are biological differences between males and females but there's no valid scientific evidence that these differences drive one sex to like pink and one sex to like blue, so to speak. These are cultural influences, which are the main way that human beings learn from the youngest age.

Pseudo-science. Pink for girls and blue for boys is culturally imposed, like most other things that are considered inherent in the nature of girls and boys. There was a time not long ago that boys in pink and frilly dresses were all the rage.

Also, it's a simple fact that most societies on this planet are patriarchal at their root. These societies need gender roles and gender stereotyping in order to function. Hence misogyny, sexism and homophobia. Their purpose is to keep people in line. There's ample evidence of this throughout history and in today's world, where for example girls and women are coerced or forced into marriage, gay men and women are raped, beaten, jailed or murdered and little girls and boys are taught that pink is for girls and blue is for boys - literally and metaphorically - from the moment they're born. You may have some investment in not mentioning the 'p' word, but I'm just stating the facts.

Yea the ones looking for equal opportunity. When you read about "the patriarchy" and rape culture etc you know you are talking with one of those who isn't worried about anything but hating all things heterosexual male. Its why so few women will identify as "feminist" these days. The movement has been taken over by radicals.

Even do I am more advocate for rational than anger, I have to express it today.

Bullying: Everyone experience bullying, I am a heterosexual Latino and I experienced bullying by girls and boys.
That I am aware, heterosexual, homosexual and transgender faces bullying.
What it angers me, is that minorities are asking for the stereotypical persons to change and act the same way they do. It is different from accept and respect.

The same goes for feminist, they are asking boys and men to act like a girlie girl rather than with rational. I am all for diversity, and I accept everyone is individual of thinking and acting. But in general terms biology and biochemical activity makes us different. Each individual has to recruit a minimum of behavior to be functional in society. Yes, certain inventories will make them more successful.

Also, I believe in equal opportunities.

But feminist groups only see equal, when the sign reads only women should be better than men in everything.

Feminist: Misandry is erased from dictionaries, law of feminist is the only law, etc. Matriarchal societies never existed.

History is spoken with a person sitting on a computer typing with air-conditioning or heating. Forgetting what really was to do farming, fishing and hunting in temperatures well above 100ºF or sub temperatures with high-low humidity with no water or electricity. They have cero clue of contextual history. They unrespect their great-great grandfathers and they forget also how thankful were their grand mothers. After all that is what supported this society. And let's not mention our current veterans because they do not deserve respect.

Let's go back to minorities and since the study mentioned came from the University of Michigan, if you live in the Detroit area now we have a girl that was not accepted. Now it is time for her to play the minority rule. Which one will be? The Afro-American or the sex one?

Feminist and minorities love hypocrisy. Now the rest of society has to conform to lack of ethics and hypocrisy. Actually we have to play ignorance.

When are feminist going to stop? Let me rephrase it, when we castrate fetuses. After all that is when we will be equal. More or less since men will not have genitalia.

Equal opportunities in America: If you work on a fortune company, women should be paid more for equal or less work; otherwise they will get suit. If you are in the army, women are supposed to carry less weight and a partner has to carry the extra weight. If you are a police women, lets do less push and run less miles.
Yes, this is equal in western cultures. And I can relate experiences in the hospital when it comes to female nurses and male nurses.

We were supposed to protect women at all costs, now women are supposed to lead the charge and protect us???
What a rational? The feminist can not protect men even on their on territory, can they do it with a foreign invader?

Of course; for feminists and people that want to sell more books; equal opportunities had not been achieved. After all the hypocrisy has to be idolatrized.

Only because colors may be influenced on kids, it does not mean that the rest of behavior is influenced.

Your hypocrisy dictates that sexual orientation should be learned just like boys and girls with colors, without even thinking of what you are saying. Homosexual should not exist, bisexual should not exist either.

What type of books dismissed other opinions? Scientific studies, even government studies that are ahead on gendered studies by stating you only have to believe in my book like a bible. They dismiss scientific journals.

Imagine a reverse attack. Let us force all women to have a clitoris the size of a penis, also enough hormones to block the development of breast. And then we will call this equal.

It is time to point out how rude, ignorant with minimum intellectual capacity persons like you exist in this planet.

Does this rise the questions that feminist are no good on chemistry, biochemistry, biology, physics, mathematics or any exact science to their convenience?

As someone stated; you are a lost case, rather than focusing on doing an inventory of good behavior on each gender and trying to educate for eradicating bad behaviors like yours.

You have to understand that there are differences in the way males and females act, see the world, etc. It's not only plainly obvious but has been researched like crazy (see this very website for oodles of info and then check out neuroscience to see that were even wired differently).

Women do have a natural tendency to be better at raising children, they also have a body designed for that with millions of years of evolution behind it.

What is wrong with being different? Having different strengths? Why is it wrong that a female might have a more of a tendency to enjoy taking care of people than a male? Define how this is bad, specifically.

I have three kids, two sons and a daughter. Having watched them since birth it's very obvious they act differently but then it's extremely obvious when observing adult behavior as well. This also applies all over the world, including cities and jungles. Take a look at the article "Eternal Curves", for example, to see why women almost always wear something that is tight in the upper thigh area or shows it off, everywhere in the world (because females store DHA in their upper thighs for breast feeding, males obviously don't, so a male can guage the health of his potential mate and how healthy her offspring can be by looking at the accumulated DHA stored as fat in her upper thighs or bum).

There's a symbol, yin and yang. They are different but equal and are representative of men and women. The only thing getting in the way is the constant putting down of the other in an effort to come out on top rather than putting everything toward full understanding of how each side works and figuring out how to best work with that.

"What is wrong with being different? Having different strengths? Why is it wrong that a female might have a more of a tendency to enjoy taking care of people than a male? Define how this is bad, specifically."

There's nothing wrong with being different. There's something hugely wrong with being disrespected because of one's difference.

John and Mary get married and quickly have kids.
John likes repairing cars; he gets a job as a mechanic. He gets money, and if he's any good at his job, he gets a good reputation. He gets social and economical respect.
Mary likes taking care of people. She "stays at home" to make a good home for John, and raise their children. She helps around at school, or around the neighbourhood, and maybe when the children are a bit older, she does a bit of volunteer work here and there. How much does she earn for all this work? Absolutely nothing. And should she want to get a "real" job once the kids are grown up, her resume will be considered mostly empty, since she never had a job before. She was just at home doing nothing worthy of social and economical respect.

How is that all right in any way?

"females store DHA in their upper thighs for breast feeding, males obviously don't, so a male can guage the health of his potential mate"

Not all males want a female mate, and not all females want to attract a male mate. This difference too should be respected, shouldn't it?

" They are different but equal and are representative of men and women. The only thing getting in the way is the constant putting down of the other in an effort to come out on top rather than putting everything toward full understanding of how each side works and figuring out how to best work with that."

Then I gave you a pointer up there: let's start by showing *equal* respect to people who work outside the home and people who work inside the home - and that includes economically. Yes, I'm saying stay-at-home parents should get paid just as much as childcare professionals, since they are doing the *exact same job*. But for some strange reason, I can already hear the howls of laughter and the shrieks of horror that such an idea would raise from our so-called "egalitarian" society.